What playoff format would you have found most satisfactory to settle the national championship debate last season?

There are flaws with any choice. Mike Slive’s plus one would have omitted Southern Cal and both undefeated mid-majors. (Ironically, it also would have rendered the SECCG a fairly meaningless exercise.) BCS Guru’s playoff formula would have excluded Texas and Alabama. An eight-team playoff would have kept Boise State out. So would Brian Cook’s six-team proposal. (More irony: Cook’s format would have left out a one-loss Big Ten conference champ in Penn State.) And a sixteen-team playoff would have included three three-loss teams, none of which even played in their respective conference title games.

With that in mind, what would have worked best? I’m not asking this to make a point that playoffs suck. I think, though, what we might have seen happen last season if a four-team format were in place would have been a lot of talk about the need to expand the size of the postseason. Especially after 2007.

Quote Of The Day

“It brings back a great Bulldog running back in Thomas who has NFL playing experience and has had success as a college coach at multiple schools. He also inherits a position that has been built to an elite level by Bryan. And it gives Bryan the opportunity to return to coaching the position he played and the one where he cut his teeth serving as a graduate assistant under wide receiver coach John Eason here at UGA. It also provides him with a new experience as a passing game coordinator.” -- Mark Richt, AB-H, 2/16/15